DR. JACOB GEORGE versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 486 · Decided: 13-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. JACOB GEORGE 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
APRIL 13, 1994 
B 
[R.M. SAHA! AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-Sections 312, 314, 357, Medical 
Practitioner--H omeopatlt-Without proper training-Causing miscarriage of 
woman resulting in death-Held guilt;-lmprisonment for four months-
C Upheld-Fine of Rs. 5000 enhanced to Rs. one laklt-Sentence reduced to 
one already undergone. 
Medical Tennination of Pregnancy Act, 1971-Section 3-Exceptions 
Held : Not covered. 
D 
Probation of Offenders Act-Section 12---Benefit of-Denied. 
Penolo~Theories ofpunishmen~tposes discussed. 
The appellant-homeopath was charged under various provisions of 
I.P.C. Including section 314 for causing miscarriage to a woman, which 
E resulted in her death. The case of the prosecution, based on the version of 
PW-1 was that the deceased was taken to the appellant's hospital on 
15.1.1987 for an abortion and she was operated upon around 10 P.M. the 
same day. The appellant declared that the operation was successful. How-
ever at around 5 A.M. on 16.1.1987 she was found dead. The prosecution 
F witness PWs. 3 and 4 who were nurses of the appellant's hospital turned 
hostile. 
The case of the appellant was that it was PW-1 who sought to abort 
the pregnancy by crude method resulting in some emergent treatment. 
G 
The trial court bald that the 'charges had not been established 
beyond reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted the appellant. 
The High Court, taking suo motu cognizance fo the matter and in 
the appeal by the State, held that the appellant was guilty, relying on the 
evidence of PW-1 and disbelieving the version of the appellant. The High 
H Court sentenced him to undergo 4 months imprisonment in addition to 
486 
' 
DR. GEORGE v. STATEOFK.ERALA[HANSARlA,J.] 
487 
which a fine of Rs. 5000 was also imposed. The High Court also refused to A 
give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant. 
In appeals to the Court the Appellant contended : (l) that the 
evidence of PW-I was not to be believed, since it stood uncorroborated, as 
PWs. 3 and 4 had turned hostile; (2) that the granting of probation would 
have removed the disqualification attached to conviction;. and (3) that the B 
substantive period of imprisonment may be reduced to one already under-
gone by him. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : I. There is no reason to disagree with the High Court in 
having placed reliance on evidence of PW-1 as be bad played a vital role 
in the entire episode. (491-G-H] 
2. The failure of the appellant to inform the police when the deceased 
got admitted speaks volumes against the veracity of the defence case. 
[492-B] 
3. The evidence or PW-1 is corroborated by the post-mortem report 
which shows that the appellant bad absolntely no training to handle the 
gadgets nsed in termination of pregnancy. [ 492-E] 
4. The conviction or the appellant as awarded by the High Conrt is 
upheld as the case is apparently not covered by any exceptions in the 
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971. [492·G] 
5. The benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is rightly denied to the 
appellant keeping in view the nature of the offence and manner in which 
the appellant performed the operation. [ 493-C) 
V Manickam Pillai v. State, (1972) Cr. LJ. 1488, distinguished. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fine is enhanced G ,1 
from Rs. 5000 to a sum of Rs. one lakb. [495·D] 
Harikrishnan v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR (1988) S.C. ll27, referred to. 
7. The substantive period of imprisonment is reduced to the one 
already undergone which is of about two months. (495-H] 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
[The Court observed that this Judgment may not be understood to 
B 
c 
D 
have expressed any opinion on the right of the deceased or for that matter, 
any woman of this country to go in for abortion, as this question has not 
arisen directly in this case. The Court further observed that it is not 
expressing any opinion whether such a right can be read in Article 21 of 
the Constitution, and if, so to what extent.] [495-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
638-39 of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16/19.10.1990 of the Kerala 
High Court in Cr!. A.No. 415/89 in Cr!. R.C. No. 44 of 1989. 
R.K. Jain, Ashish Malhotra, G.Prakash and R. Sasiprabhu for the 
Appellant. 
M.T. George for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARIA, J. Life is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.